[PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Dan Carpenter]

The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:

	ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
	if (ack) {

the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
fine.

Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
---
 drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
index fe8efba2d45f..fee75b5d098e 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
@@ -204,12 +204,12 @@ static struct irq_chip stmfx_irq_chip = {
 static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
 {
 	struct stmfx *stmfx = data;
-	unsigned long n, pending;
+	u32 pending;
 	u32 ack;
+	int n;
 	int ret;
 
-	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING,
-			  (u32 *)&pending);
+	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING, &pending);
 	if (ret)
 		return IRQ_NONE;
 
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
 			return IRQ_NONE;
 	}
 
-	for_each_set_bit(n, &pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
+	for_each_set_bit(n, (unsigned long *)&pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
 		handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(stmfx->irq_domain, n));
 
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Dan Carpenter]

The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:

	ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
	if (ack) {

the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
fine.

Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
---
 drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
index fe8efba2d45f..fee75b5d098e 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
@@ -204,12 +204,12 @@ static struct irq_chip stmfx_irq_chip = {
 static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
 {
 	struct stmfx *stmfx = data;
-	unsigned long n, pending;
+	u32 pending;
 	u32 ack;
+	int n;
 	int ret;
 
-	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING,
-			  (u32 *)&pending);
+	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING, &pending);
 	if (ret)
 		return IRQ_NONE;
 
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
 			return IRQ_NONE;
 	}
 
-	for_each_set_bit(n, &pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
+	for_each_set_bit(n, (unsigned long *)&pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
 		handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(stmfx->irq_domain, n));
 
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Lee Jones]

On Wed, 15 May 2019, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
> bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:
> 
> 	ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
> 	if (ack) {
> 
> the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
> I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
> well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
> inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
> the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
> fine.
> 
> Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Could do with an author's Ack here.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Lee Jones]

On Wed, 15 May 2019, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
> bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:
> 
> 	ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
> 	if (ack) {
> 
> the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
> I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
> well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
> inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
> the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
> fine.
> 
> Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Could do with an author's Ack here.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Amelie DELAUNAY]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your patch. One minor comment:

On 5/15/19 11:31 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
> bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:
> 
> 	ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
> 	if (ack) {
> 
> the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
> I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
> well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
> inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
> the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
> fine.
> 
> Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> ---
>   drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 8 ++++----
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> index fe8efba2d45f..fee75b5d098e 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> @@ -204,12 +204,12 @@ static struct irq_chip stmfx_irq_chip = {
>   static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
>   {
>   	struct stmfx *stmfx = data;
> -	unsigned long n, pending;
> +	u32 pending;
>   	u32 ack;
> +	int n;
>   	int ret;

Could you group:

u32 pending, ack;
int n, ret;

>   
> -	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING,
> -			  (u32 *)&pending);
> +	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING, &pending);
>   	if (ret)
>   		return IRQ_NONE;
>   
> @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
>   			return IRQ_NONE;
>   	}
>   
> -	for_each_set_bit(n, &pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
> +	for_each_set_bit(n, (unsigned long *)&pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
>   		handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(stmfx->irq_domain, n));
>   
>   	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> 

I've tested it on stm32mp157c-ev1, so you can add my
Tested-by: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st.com>

Regards,
Amelie

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Amelie DELAUNAY]
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[PATCH v2] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Dan Carpenter]

The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:

        ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
        if (ack) {

the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
fine.

Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
---
v2: white space changes

 drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
index fe8efba2d45f..7c419c078688 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
@@ -204,12 +204,10 @@ static struct irq_chip stmfx_irq_chip = {
 static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
 {
 	struct stmfx *stmfx = data;
-	unsigned long n, pending;
-	u32 ack;
-	int ret;
+	u32 pending, ack;
+	int n, ret;
 
-	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING,
-			  (u32 *)&pending);
+	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING, &pending);
 	if (ret)
 		return IRQ_NONE;
 
@@ -224,7 +222,7 @@ static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
 			return IRQ_NONE;
 	}
 
-	for_each_set_bit(n, &pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
+	for_each_set_bit(n, (unsigned long *)&pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
 		handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(stmfx->irq_domain, n));
 
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH v2] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Dan Carpenter]

The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:

        ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
        if (ack) {

the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
fine.

Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
---
v2: white space changes

 drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
index fe8efba2d45f..7c419c078688 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
@@ -204,12 +204,10 @@ static struct irq_chip stmfx_irq_chip = {
 static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
 {
 	struct stmfx *stmfx = data;
-	unsigned long n, pending;
-	u32 ack;
-	int ret;
+	u32 pending, ack;
+	int n, ret;
 
-	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING,
-			  (u32 *)&pending);
+	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING, &pending);
 	if (ret)
 		return IRQ_NONE;
 
@@ -224,7 +222,7 @@ static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
 			return IRQ_NONE;
 	}
 
-	for_each_set_bit(n, &pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
+	for_each_set_bit(n, (unsigned long *)&pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
 		handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(stmfx->irq_domain, n));
 
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Amelie DELAUNAY]

On 6/6/19 2:41 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
> bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:
> 
>          ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
>          if (ack) {
> 
> the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
> I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
> well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
> inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
> the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
> fine.
> 
> Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>

Acked-by: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st.com>

> ---
> v2: white space changes
> 
>   drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 10 ++++------
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> index fe8efba2d45f..7c419c078688 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> @@ -204,12 +204,10 @@ static struct irq_chip stmfx_irq_chip = {
>   static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
>   {
>   	struct stmfx *stmfx = data;
> -	unsigned long n, pending;
> -	u32 ack;
> -	int ret;
> +	u32 pending, ack;
> +	int n, ret;
>   
> -	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING,
> -			  (u32 *)&pending);
> +	ret = regmap_read(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_PENDING, &pending);
>   	if (ret)
>   		return IRQ_NONE;
>   
> @@ -224,7 +222,7 @@ static irqreturn_t stmfx_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
>   			return IRQ_NONE;
>   	}
>   
> -	for_each_set_bit(n, &pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
> +	for_each_set_bit(n, (unsigned long *)&pending, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_MAX)
>   		handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(stmfx->irq_domain, n));
>   
>   	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> 

Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Amelie DELAUNAY]
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Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
> bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:
> 
>         ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
>         if (ack) {
> 
> the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
> I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
> well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
> inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
> the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
> fine.
> 
> Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> ---
> v2: white space changes
> 
>  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 10 ++++------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Applied, thanks.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: stmfx: Uninitialized variable in stmfx_irq_handler()

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> The problem is that on 64bit systems then we don't clear the higher
> bits of the "pending" variable.  So when we do:
> 
>         ack = pending & ~BIT(STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN_GPIO);
>         if (ack) {
> 
> the if (ack) condition relies on uninitialized data.  The fix it that
> I've changed "pending" from an unsigned long to a u32.  I changed "n" as
> well, because that's a number in the 0-10 range and it fits easily
> inside an int.  We do need to add a cast to "pending" when we use it in
> the for_each_set_bit() loop, but that doesn't cause a proble, it's
> fine.
> 
> Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> ---
> v2: white space changes
> 
>  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 10 ++++------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Applied, thanks.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog